|Internet-Draft||Timestamp extension IOAM DEX||February 2023|
|Huang Feng, et al.||Expires 19 August 2023||[Page]|
- Network Working Group
- Intended Status:
- Standards Track
Timestamp extension for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Export
This document extends the In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Export option type to support timestamping by adding and defining two optional timestamp fields and corresponding flags.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 August 2023.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
Network operators wish to measure the On-Path delay across their networks to understand which part of the network causes how much delay and impact which applications. Network nodes can leverage IOAM [RFC9197] to add timestamps into the packet and export the raw data with [I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport] or the calculated On-Path delay with [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry] to the IPFIX [RFC7011] collector.¶
The IOAM DEX Option-type format is defined in Section 3.2 [RFC9326]. To be able to measure the delay between the IOAM encapsulation node and the current IOAM node, the timestamp is added to the IOAM DEX option-type as illustrated in Figure 1.¶
This document proposes two optional fields to be included in the IOAM DEX option type format so that they can be enabled using IOAM DEX Extension-Flags. New Extension-Flags are allocated by IANA, as defined in Section 7. This document proposes using the bit 2 for the Timestamp Seconds and the bit 3 for the Timestamp Fraction.¶
While the Timestamp Seconds field can be used standalone, the Timestamp Fraction MUST be used in combination with the Timestamp Seconds field.¶
While the Timestamp Seconds and Timestamp Fraction can be exported via IOAM raw export using [I-D.spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport] and the calculated On-Path delay can be exported using IPFIX with [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry], the mechanism and associated formats for exporting the delay metrics are outside the scope of this document.¶
This document requests IANA to create the following two bits in the "IOAM DEX Extension-Flags" registry.¶
Bit: 2 Description: Timestamp Seconds Reference: this document¶
Bit: 3 Description: Timestamp Fraction Reference: this document¶
- Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
- Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
- Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi, Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9197>.
- Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Exporting", RFC 9326, DOI 10.17487/RFC9326, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9326>.
- Graf, T., Claise, B., and A. H. Feng, "Export of On-Path Delay in IPFIX", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-00, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-00.txt>.
- Spiegel, M., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and R. Sivakolundu, "In-situ OAM raw data export with IPFIX", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport-06, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport-06.txt>.
- Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken, "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.